The new economics of labor migration (NELM) uses family unit as the unit of analysis. On the surface, it looks like it is a perfect theory that can be used to explain the labor migration situation in Uzbekistan. From Sophie Massot’s article, we learned that the Uzbek society is heavily family-driven, and the decision to go abroad is usually a family decision. Specifically, Massot discussed the decision of migration being a decision of investment for Uzbek families.[1] It seemingly matches what NELM states, “NELM sees migration as a family or household investment strategy to provide resources for investment in economic activities” (DeHaas, p.54). [2] However, when taking a closer look at the decision-making process, there are many factors that are at stake, yet cannot be explained via the application of NELM.
A significant contributor to migrants’ decision is not intra-family, but the society. Uzbekistan’s policy pushes for its labor surplus to go abroad and look for jobs. From Massot’s article, we learned that in the early days immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Uzbekistanis felt they not only lost job opportunities, but also freedom to travel across the USSR. The change of identity from being a resident of the USSR to a citizen of Uzbekistan imposed significant influences on the decision-making process of migration. [3] It was obvious to Uzbek citizens that there were not enough jobs within the country, hence they needed to go overseas in order to make an income. Even today, Uzbekistani government still promotes policies that assist its people to find work abroad. In a recent policy, the government grants a two-year $1,000 loan to its people who are looking to find work overseas. Although the interest rate of 25% seems skyrocketing high, it is accepted among people in Uzbekistan. [4]
NELM states that relative deprivation rather than absolute poverty is the driver for migration. For families in Uzbekistan, no job meant no food. When people’s lives are on the line, seeking opportunities overseas only became a resort to continue living. In this case, relative deprivation can influence where the families choose to go, but not whether they choose to go. For example, Massot’s article mentioned three destinations – Moscow, Seoul, and New York. The choice of destination reflects the family’s status, which can also be questionable because of the ritual economy of Uzbekistan. According to Alisher Ilkhamov, the ritual culture – meaning hosting large ceremonies for significant household events – is deeply rooted in Uzbek families, and many families struggle with their finances even though there is constant support from remittances overseas. [5] Therefore, it is hard to draw the line of when financial status becomes a significant factor in the decision-making process.
As DeHaas mentioned, NELM does not consider the complication of intra-family relationships, which is exemplified through stories in Uzbekistan. Massot mentioned the phenomenon of the “New Uzbeks”, where younger generations tend to have conflicts with their parents regarding finding work abroad. Many migrants do not want their children to repeat their past for various reasons, but children still want to explore their own future. [6] Additionally, New Uzbeks can be part of the new wealthy population, where they need to maintain a certain level of social status and appearance among their group. [7] This image-driven incentive of migration also complicates the decision-making process of migration.
In conclusion, although NELM provides a decent explanation of using family as the unit of analysis, it fails to capture the complexity of decision-making process in labor and migration.
References:
[1] Massot, Sophie. “Economic Migrations from Uzbekistan to Moscow, Seoul, and New York: Sacrifice or Rite of Passage?”
[2] Haas, Hein de, Stephen Castles, and Mark J. Miller. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. Red Globe Press, 2020.
[3] Massot, Sophie. Ibid.
[4] “Uzbekistan Pledges to Give Hopeful Migrant Laborers Loans.” Eurasianet, 2020. https://eurasianet.org/uzbekistan-pledges-to-give-hopeful-migrant-laborers-loans.
[5] Ilkhamov, Alisher. “Labour Migration and the Ritual Economy of the Uzbek Extended Family.” Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie 138, no. 2 (2013): 259-84. Accessed October 4, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24364957.
[6] Massot, Sophie. Ibid.
[7] Ilkhamov, Alisher. Ibid.
Interesting: you go in the opposite direction from Jackson’s analysis of Uzbek migration and NELM. Your proposal is that examining family as decision-making unit that drives migration is not enough, in part because this emphasis may lack attention to the realities of economic crisis, but mostly because extended family and social relationships create many of the pressures that drive migration–drawing on Ilkhamov’s piece. Good points!
One might ask what else an out of work man in Uzbekistan might do, besides labor migration? Before that labor wave began, many unemployed men tried to make a living through petty sales–working in the bazaar, or through casual day labor (mardikor work). Both are really looked down on, socially. So this then is part of the social pressure that drives men to choose potentially more lucrative but much more risky labor migration, where they take jobs abroad that they would not want at home.